Statement of Administration Policy: S. 1241 - Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1991

(Senate)
(Biden (D) Delaware)

If S. 1241 is presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisers will recommend a veto. The Administration urges the Senate to instead pass the President's comprehensive violent crime control proposals contained in S. 635.

S. 1241 would thwart the effective use of the death penalty, overturn the major Supreme Court decisions that safeguard the finality of criminal judgments, and make no improvement in the exclusionary rule. The Administration's principal objections to S. 1241 are explained below.

Death Penalty

The so-called "Racial Justice Act" in title II of S. 1241 is the same proposal that the Senate rejected in the last two Congresses. It would effectively establish a racial quota system for capital punishment under which death sentences would be overturned if specified racial proportions were not achieved in imposing and carrying out the death penalty. Its likely result would be to invalidate all death sentences currently in effect in the United States, and to foreclose all future use of the death penalty. The systematic consideration of race in capital cases contemplated by the "Racial Justice Act" is contrary to the constitutional principle of individualized justice. The Senate should pass instead the protections against racial discrimination in title X of S. 635.

The provisions of title II of S. 1241 relating to the Federal death penalty omit important measures that the Administration supports and that the Senate passed last year. These include authorizing the death penalty for certain major "drug kingpins, and authorizing admission of information in capital sentencing hearings concerning the effect of the offense on the victim and the victim's family. The Senate should pass instead the death penalty provisions in title I of S. 635.

Habeas Corpus

Title XI of S. 1241 proposes Federal habeas corpus procedures that systematically overturn existing Supreme Court decisions which guard against delay and litigation abuse. The "optional" procedures for State capital cases in title XI of S. 1241 are far worse than the current rules. They would increase delay, increase opportunities to engage in repetitive habeas corpus filings, and increase opportunities to raise claims that were not presented to the State courts.

Title XI of S. 1241 also would overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Teague v. Lane. It would thereby enlarge the opportunities for attacking criminal judgments on the basis of judicial decisions coming long after the case was tried and the judgment became final. This would jeopardize the integrity of convictions and sentences in all types of Federal and State criminal cases, including both capital and non-capital cases. In lieu of title XI, the Senate should pass the habeas corpus reforms in title II of S. 635.

Exclusionary Rule

S. 1241 makes no effort to reform the exclusionary rule. Title XXIII of S. 1241 is only a purported codification of the rule adopted by the Supreme Court which admits evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant. This proposed codification is not accurate and would actually narrow the admissibility of evidence in comparison with current law. The Senate should pass instead title III of S. 635.

Police Corps and Law Enforcement Training and Education

Title VIII contains the latest version of the so-called "Police Corps" proposal, as well as a program of scholarships for in- service police officers. The Police Corps program would require the Federal Government to provide free college educations for 80,000 prospective entry-level police officers on an ongoing basis, if this program becomes fully operational, its annual cost could exceed $1 billion. The Administration opposes this title because: (1) it purports to improve quality and expand the police hiring pool, but offers no assurances that participants will remain in police work after their limited service obligations are fulfilled; (2) its large cost would displace law enforcement programs of proven worth; (3) it would do nothing to increase the number of police officers on the street since officers hired under the program would be paid out of State and local police budgets, and the number of officers would continue to be constrained by those budgets; and (4) it may principally benefit students who would have joined police forces in the absence of the program.

Waiting Period for Handgun Purchases

While the President supports effective measures to identify felons attempting to purchase firearms, he is opposed to partial solutions to the problem of violent crime. If the Congress acts favorably on the President's comprehensive crime bill, the president will accept, as part of that bill, appropriate measures to identify felons attempting to purchase handguns.

The Administration considers a point-of-purchase system the best way to identify felons buying firearms. The type of background cheek conducted by a law enforcement official in a point-of- purchase system or during a seven-day waiting period is nearly the same. The success of both identification systems depends heavily upon computerized data relating to convicted felons. Consequently, States that have established point-of-purchase identification systems should be excluded from the procedures proposed in title XXVII of S. 1241. Such an exclusion appears to be intended by S. 1241, but the language of the bill may not accomplish this purpose.

Other Concerns

S. 1241 does not include many of the most important provisions of the President's bill relating to the criminal use of firearms, obstruction of justice, gangs and juvenile offenders, terrorism, sexual violence and child abuse, drug testing of criminal offenders, and victims' rights. Provisions addressing the same subjects in S. 1241 are frequently weaker or otherwise inadequate in comparison with the corresponding provisions in the President's bill.

S. 1241 also contains excessive authorizations of appropriations and excessive Federal matching shares for grant programs. These provisions increase the likelihood that Federal funding will supplant, rather than supplement, State and local funding. In fact, these provisions of s. 1241 would decrease the likelihood that State and local governments will continue to support programs following a limited period of Federal assistance.

Scoring for Purposes of Pay-As-You-Go and the Caps

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) requires that all revenue and direct spending legislation meet a pay-as-you-go requirement. That is, no such bill should result in an increase in the deficit; and if it does, it will trigger a sequester if not fully offset. S. 1241 contains one provision that is subject to pay-as-you-go. It would repeal the statutory limit on expenditures from the Crime Victims Fund. OMB's preliminary scoring of this provision is that it would have no effect on the deficit during FYs 1991-1995. This is because the Fund's outlays are not expected to be greater than the amounts assumed in the baseline.

Final scoring of this legislation may deviate from this estimate. If S. 1241 were enacted, final OMB scoring estimates would be published within five days of enactment, as required by OBRA. The cumulative effects of all enacted legislation on direct spending and revenues will be issued in monthly reports transmitted to the Congress.